Thursday, March 23, 2023

The Most Important Book You’ve Never Read

Perhaps I’m mistaken, but my guess is that none of you regular readers of my blog have ever read William R. Catton Jr.’s book Overshoot. I read it for the first time this year (and plan to read it again). I wish I had read it forty years ago; it is, truly, a book of great significance. 

Overshoot: The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change was first published in 1980 and is still in print. (I read the Kindle version of the 1982 paperback.) Eco-theologian Michael Dowd, whom I have referred to repeatedly, says Overshoot is the most important book he has ever read.

All of the first part, “The Unfathomed Predicament of Mankind” can be read on Amazon.com’s webpage (see here). There the author asserts, “Today mankind is locked into stealing ravenously from the future. That is what this book is about.”

Catton (1926~2015) goes on to state that “contemporary well-being is achieved at the expense of our descendants.” He then says,

A major aim of this book is to show that commonly proposed “solutions” for problems confronting mankind are actually going to aggravate those problems (p. 3).

At the end of the first chapter, the author declares, “This is not a book to be read either casually or passively.” Indeed, it is not.**

Catton explains the circumstance and consequence of what he calls “new ecological understandings.” This is summarized in Table 2 (on p. 71) in Overshoot (pasted here), and I encourage you to read it carefully. 


Having watched several videos by Dowd and having read the illuminating books by Ophuls and Catton, I have, reluctantly, adopted the first position, that of realism.

The second of the five “labels” is perhaps the only one that needs some explanation, although the position it designates is widely held. The term “cargoism” is based on the “cargo cults” in the Pacific island societies, especially the pre-literate Melanesian peoples.

Whatever was needed was “miraculously” brought in on European cargo ships. In a similar manner, many contemporary people have “faith in science and technology as infallible solvers of any conceivable problem” (pp. 185-6). Thus, such faith in sure-to-come technological solutions is called cargoism.

Perhaps the most common position for socially aware people is the third one. They realize there is an environmental problem and so they seek to do something (or many things) to address the problem. But such actions don’t solve the deep, underlying predicament; it is merely cosmeticism.

Some people, though, just completely disregard the “circumstance” and the “consequence” as described by author Catton, and this widespread position is called cynicism.

Many other people, and perhaps this is the largest group, don’t just merely disregard but actually deny both circumstance and consequence. This is the position of ostrichism.

So, here are the questions I leave with you. Which of these five terms best describes your present position? If you don’t hold to the first position (realism), are you satisfied with your current stance and would you recommend it to others? Why or why not?

Of course, many of you may think all this is too painful to think about—and I certainly understand why you may feel that way. But refusing to think about the issues is, in effect, “ostrichism.”

As for me, I want to continue advocating realism, believing that that is the best position for promoting both a social conscience and mental health for oneself as well as the optimal future for humankind.

_____

** Three times in the first chapter, Catton makes reference to Ecology and the Politics of Scarcity (1977) by William Ophuls, whom I introduced in my March 1 blog post

See here for helpful biographical information about Catton. 

Wednesday, March 15, 2023

What Matters?

The 95th Academy Awards ceremony was held this past Sunday night, and perhaps many of you watched at least some of it. I saw hardly any of it, but early Monday morning I was eager to see what/who received the Oscars. 

Of the ten movies nominated for an Oscar, I have seen only The Banshees of Inisherin, Everything Everywhere All at Once, Tár, and Women Talking. It is interesting to consider what matters, or matters most, to the characters in each of these movies.

On the (fictional) Irish island of Inisherin, Pádraic thought that friendship matters. But his (former) friend Colm thought that legacy matters more than friendship with his “dull” friend Pádraic. This is an interesting question: is leaving a legacy rather than maintaining a friendship what matters most?

Lydia Tár thought primarily that power matters. Brilliantly played by Australian actress Cate Blanchett, the talented but rather unlikeable Tár is a brilliant classical music conductor. Her focus, though, is on gaining, maintaining, and exerting power. Is having power what matters most?

The Mennonite women in Women Talking conclude that the combination of safety, faith, and thinking is what matters most. This is a powerful movie about strong women who had been betrayed by the deplorably deviant men of their community who apparently thought that sex matters most.

What matters is a major part of the quirky film Everything Everywhere All at Once (EEAAO), which won the best picture Oscar as well as six others, including the best actress award for Michelle Yeoh, the impressive Malaysian Chinese actress.

EEAAO pits the idea that everything matters against the claim that nothing matters. Evelyn, the mother played by Yeoh, realizes everything matters, especially reconciliation with her daughter. The daughter Joy, though, mutters near the end of the lengthy movie, Nothing matters.

Even though chosen as the best picture of the year, I found EEAAO hard to watch. Based on the view that there are multiple universes which exist simultaneously, it moved too fast from one universe to another. It was also filled with silliness, much of which I found unenjoyable.

Nevertheless, EEAAO was filled with thought-provoking content as well, including consideration of what matters. In the second article linked to below is this assertion:

In a split-second decision at the end of the movie, Evelyn beckons Joy to stay with her instead of pushing the world toward destruction. Evelyn tells us … that even if this world will eventually end with failure and nothingness, it is worthwhile to spend every fleeting moment doing laundry, filing taxes and working toward small steps of reconciliation.

In the third link below, posted in March 2022, the author explains that EEAAO "doesn't reject nihilism as a philosophy. Rather, it promotes a more optimistic, humanist nihilism. Instead of ‘nothing matters, so why bother?’ it says ‘Nothing matters, unless you decide that it does.’"

We can, in fact, decide that the life we have now is precious and it is something that truly matters.

In The Shack (remember that bestselling 2007 book?) Wm. Paul Young wrote, “If anything matters then everything matters.” In commenting later on that statement, he wrote, 

Either nothing matters and we’re all caught in this bind of despair, or everything matters and life has value and meaning, and what we do with our lives is important.

But, if all (or most) life will possibly be annihilated, maybe even in this century, does anything really matter? Perhaps that “nihilistic” idea was lurking in Joy’s mind in EEAAO, and it seems to be common among many present-day twentysomethings and older teens.

Regardless of how long we or the world as we know it may last, however, if we live now in a relationship of harmony with God, with other people, and with the world of nature, that is something splendid and it does indeed matter, and matters immensely.

_____

Here are links to some thoughtful articles about EEAAO:

** In 'Everything Everywhere All at Once,' a multiverse of absurdity meets intergenerational healing (3/11)

** ‘Everything Everywhere All at Once’ and the Paradox of Achieving ‘Nothing’ (3/12)

** The Ending Of Everything Everywhere All At Once Explained (3/2022)

Thursday, March 9, 2023

The Amazing Gregory Boyle, S.J.

For seventeen semesters from the autumn of 2006, I had the privilege of teaching one course a semester at Rockhurst University in Kansas City, a Jesuit school founded in 1910. It was a rewarding experience for me, and I grew in appreciation for the Jesuits, whose Order was formed in 1534.

I regret that I did not know about Father Gregory Boyle back then in order to introduce him to my students. He has now been a Jesuit for 50+ years and has had a remarkable ministry in Los Angeles for 35+ years. Let me share with you some highlights about this amazing man. 

Gregory Joseph Boyle was born in Los Angeles in 1954. Upon graduating from a Jesuit high school, he joined the Society of Jesus (S.J., the Jesuits). Following his graduation from Gonzaga University, he then earned master’s degrees from three other Jesuit schools.

After being ordained as a priest in 1984, Boyle lived/served for a year in Bolivia. He then returned to LA, where he was appointed pastor of Dolores Mission Church in Boyle Heights, then the poorest Catholic parish in LA and with the highest concentration of gang activity in the city.

In 1988, Boyle began what grew into Homeboy Industries, which, according to their website “is the largest gang rehabilitation and re-entry program in the world.” They go on to say,

For over 30 years, we have stood as a beacon of hope in Los Angeles to provide training and support to formerly gang-involved and previously incarcerated people, allowing them to redirect their lives and become contributing members of our community.

Fr. Boyle has written three major books that I highly recommend. His first book, Tattoos on the Heart: The Power of Boundless Compassion (2010) became a “New York Times Bestseller.” It is a delight to read—as is his second book, Barking to the Choir: The Power of Radical Kinship (2017).*

The third of Boyle’s Power trilogy doesn’t have such a catchy title, but it is an equally engaging book. It is The Whole Language: The Power of Extravagant Tenderness (2021). Like the two predecessors, this book is also a delightful blend of theological reflections and conversations with “homies.”

Consider these key quotes from Boyle’s books:

** “Here is what we seek: a compassion that can stand in awe at what the poor have to carry rather than stand in judgment at how they carry it.” (Tattoos)

** “Compassion isn't just about feeling the pain of others; it's about bringing them in toward yourself. If we love what God loves, then, in compassion, margins get erased. 'Be compassionate as God is compassionate,' means the dismantling of barriers that exclude.” (Tattoos)

** “God, of course, is unchanging and immutable. But our sense of who God is changes as we grow and experience God, and God is constantly nudging us toward that evolution.” (Barking)

** Kinship asks us to move from blame to understanding.” (Barking)

** “It is our lifelong task … to refine our view of God. We won’t be able to speak the whole language until we know the wholeness of God” (The Whole Language, p. 12)

And then there is this quote (which is directly related to my Feb. 16 blog post): 

This is one of more than 50 Boyle quotes found at
Top 50 Gregory Boyle Quotes

I am deeply grateful to Fr. Boyle for what I have learned from him about compassion, kinship, and tenderness. But most of all I am grateful for how he has expanded my understanding of God.

The first chapter of my book Thirty True Things Everyone Needs to Know Now (2018) is “God is Greater than We Think, or Even Can Think.” Reading Fr. Boyle’s books has increased my awareness of the greatness of God and God’s unconditional love (grace).

That unconditional love is personified in the life and work of Father Gregory Boyle, an amazing man, indeed.

_____

* In reading Barking, I learned that G-Dog, a nicely done documentary of Fr. Boyle, was produced in 2012, and last month June and I really enjoyed watching it (on Amazon Prime; it is also available on other streaming services.)

Wednesday, March 1, 2023

Apologies to the Grandchildren

As many of you know, I have seven grandchildren. The oldest celebrated her 38th birthday in January, so I have been a grandfather for 38 years now. In 2022, two of my granddaughters became mothers, so now I also have two precious great-grandchildren, the first born a year ago last month.

I have been thinking about my grandchildren in a new way because of reading two books written to or for grandchildren. Those books are closely related to my January 28 blog post.

Larry R. Rasmussen’s book The Planet You Inherit was published last year. Its subtitle is Letters to My Grandchildren When Uncertainty’s a Sure Thing. I had the privilege of writing a review of that book for The Englewood Review of Books, and you can read that review here.

Rasmussen (b. 1939) is the Reinhold Niebuhr Professor of Social Ethics, emeritus, at Union Theological Seminary in New York. Among his published books are Earth Community, Earth Ethics (1996) and Earth Honoring Faith (2013).

It is no surprise that the letters written to Eduardo and Martin Rasmussen Villegas (b. 2015 and 2018), his two grandchildren, are primarily related to his many years of ecotheological teaching and writing.

While the letters clearly express the writer’s love for his two young grandsons, it will likely be 2035 and beyond before they will be able to comprehend the meaning and significance of those letters.

Maybe, though, the writer’s intention was to say important things to us adults who read those letters now, as well as to Eduardo and Martin, who will be reading them much later.

One of Rasmussen’s most important letters is titled “Responsible by Degrees,” written in August 2020. There he broached the possibility of “widespread civilizational collapse”—and asserts that “we know we must put an end to a growing, extractive economy running on ecological deficits.”

Rasmussen, though, has hopeful views about humanity’s ability to confront the current and coming ecological crisis effectively, and those views need to be pondered thoughtfully.

Still, this challenging book written for the author’s young grandsons needs to be balanced with careful consideration of more realistic views about what is most likely to occur in Eduardo’s and Martin’s lifetime.

William Ophuls’s Apologies to the Grandchildren is a 2018 book of essays, the first one bearing the same title as the book, which does give a more realistic and less hopeful view of the current ecological crisis.

(I first learned of Ophuls, born in 1934 and with a Ph.D. from Yale University in 1973, from the video by Michael Dowd that I introduced in my January 28th blog post linked to above).

Ophuls begins his essay with stark words: ”Civilization is, by its very nature, a long-running Ponzi scheme. It lives by robbing nature and borrowing from the future, exploiting its hinterland until there is nothing left to exploit, after which it implodes.”

He continues by saying that civilization “generates a temporary and fictitious surplus that it uses to enrich and empower the few and to dispossess and dominate the many. Industrial civilization is the apotheosis and quintessence of this fatal course.”

He goes on to write these blunt words to the grandchildren, “A fortunate minority gains luxuries and freedoms galore, but only by slaughtering, poisoning, and exhausting creation. So we bequeath you a ruined planet that dooms you to a hardscrabble existence, or perhaps none at all” (p. 1)

What Can We Say/Do? While I would like to embrace Rasmussen’s hopeful view, I have become convinced by Ophuls and by Dowd—as well as by William Catton, whom I plan to introduce in later blog posts—that my grandchildren and their children will experience a world of increasing gloom.

Perhaps there is still time for necessary changes to be made, but that is doubtful—and there is little evidence to indicate that such changes will likely be made. Perhaps, sadly, little can realistically be done other than to offer deep apologies to the grandchildren.

Yet, surely, we can work toward pushing the impending collapse farther into the future and encourage the grandchildren to find ways to flourish now in the present, regardless of what looms in a future that, unfortunately, may not be as uncertain as Rasmussen thinks.